the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mammals in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone’s Red Forest: a motion activated camera trap study
- 1UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA11 4AP, UK
- 2Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste & Radioecology, International Radioecology Laboratory, 77th Gvardiiska Dyviiya Str.11, P.O. Box 151, 07100 Slavutych, Kyiv Region, Ukraine
- 3School of Science, Engineering & Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK
- 1UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA11 4AP, UK
- 2Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste & Radioecology, International Radioecology Laboratory, 77th Gvardiiska Dyviiya Str.11, P.O. Box 151, 07100 Slavutych, Kyiv Region, Ukraine
- 3School of Science, Engineering & Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK
Abstract. Since the accident at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 there have been few studies published on medium/large mammals inhabiting the area from which the human population was removed (now referred to as the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone). The dataset presented in this paper describes a motion activated camera trap study (n=21 cameras) conducted from September 2016–September 2017 in the Red Forest located within the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone. The Red Forest, which is likely the most anthropogenically contaminated radioactive terrestrial ecosystem on earth, suffered a severe wildfire in July 2016. The motion activated trap cameras were therefore in place as the Red Forest recovered from the wildfire. A total of 45859 images were captured and of these 19391 contained identifiable species or organism types (e.g. insects). A total of 14 mammal species were positively identified together with 23 species of birds (though birds were not a focus of the study).
Weighted absorbed radiation dose rate rates were estimated for mammals across the different camera trap locations; the number of species observed did not vary with estimated dose rate. We also observed no relationship between estimated weighted absorbed radiation dose rates and the number of triggering events for the four main species observed during the study (Brown hare, Eurasian elk, Red deer, Roe deer).
The data presented will be of value to those studying wildlife within the CEZ both from the perspectives of the potential effects of radiation on wildlife and also rewilding in this large, abandoned area. They may also have value in any future studies investigating the impacts of the recent Russian military action in the CEZ.
The data and supporting documentation are freely available from the Environmental Information Data Centre (EIDC) under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence: https://doi.org/10.5285/bf82cec2-5f8a-407c-bf74-f8689ca35e83 (Barnett et al. 2022a).
Nicholas A. Beresford et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-332', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Nov 2022
The manuscript presents the data set collected by the use or motion-activated camera traps with Chornobyl's Red Forest during a one-year period following massive wild fires. Authors also analyse the relationship between mammal richness and abundance, and estimated radiation levels (i.e. estimated dose rates). This is a very complete and valuable data set that will allow to examine many different ecological questions (e.g. rewilding processes, post-fire regeneration, ecological effects of radiation, disturbance of war related actions…) within a very special place.
My only suggestion refers to the Discussion of the results, and its comparison with a previous paper (Moller and Mousseau 2013). In my view, it would be worth to mention that the present study differs in many aspects to Moller and Mousseau (2013): different geographic scope (broader in the 2013 paper, which includes most of the Exclusion Zone, and not just the Red Forest), different contamination scenarios (2013 paper included areas with much lower radiation levels, which may affect the comparisons regarding the effects of radio-contamination on mammal distribution)…
I have also two minor suggestions:
- I would prefer to have Table 1 arranged following a phylogenetic order, rather than an alphabetic one.
-Figure 3. I suggest to remove "Demonstration of the lack of" from the legend.
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-332', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Nov 2022
This is an interesting and important data set relative to wildlife within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. The study uses camera traps within a small area of the red forest following a forest fire. The data are important because the abundance and diversity of wildlife at Chernobyl and Fukushima is controversial with groups reporting highly different results. The data of Barnett et al. align with the establishe paradigms of radioecology as established over the last 50+ years. The conclusions of the study are supported by the data presented.
One suggestion is to add additional details on the dose calculations. External dose is not addressed explicitily. I assume external dose is simulated using the ERICA model and based on radioactivity soil concentrations of 137Cs and 90Sr. If so, please add what soil moisture variable was used in your ERICA model run. External dose simulated by ERICA is quite sensitive to soil moisture, and this information could be useful to others that want to use your data. You do state that ambient external dose rate was measured at each camer trap location. Please make it clear to the reader whether the ambient dose rate was used to estimate dose rate to wildlife, or if the ERICA model simulated both internal and external dose rates.
-
AC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-332', Nick Beresford, 16 Jan 2023
We thank both reviewers for the positive comments on our paper. Below we detail how we have responded to the specific points they raise:
RC 1
COMMENT>> My only suggestion refers to the Discussion of the results, and its comparison with a previous paper (Moller and Mousseau 2013). In my view, it would be worth to mention that the present study differs in many aspects to Moller and Mousseau (2013): different geographic scope (broader in the 2013 paper, which includes most of the Exclusion Zone, and not just the Red Forest), different contamination scenarios (2013 paper included areas with much lower radiation levels, which may affect the comparisons regarding the effects of radio-contamination on mammal distribution)…
RESPONSE>> We have addressed this comment directly the first time the Moller and Mousseau paper is mentioned in the Introduction. We have also added reference to three studies which show, over the wider CEZ, no relationship between mammal abundance/diversity and radiation exposure. In the Discussion, we now state our data do not support the low number of mammals in the Red Forest as reported by Moller and Mousseau.
COMMENT>> I would prefer to have Table 1 arranged following a phylogenetic order, rather than an alphabetic one.
RESPONSE>> We think for most readers presenting alphabetically is an easier way to consult the table.
COMMENT>> Figure 3. I suggest to remove "Demonstration of the lack of" from the legend.
RESPONSE>>Edited as suggested
RC2
COMMENT>> One suggestion is to add additional details on the dose calculations. External dose is not addressed explicitily. I assume external dose is simulated using the ERICA model and based on radioactivity soil concentrations of 137Cs and 90Sr. If so, please add what soil moisture variable was used in your ERICA model run. External dose simulated by ERICA is quite sensitive to soil moisture, and this information could be useful to others that want to use your data. You do state that ambient external dose rate was measured at each camera trap location. Please make it clear to the reader whether the ambient dose rate was used to estimate dose rate to wildlife, or if the ERICA model simulated both internal and external dose rates.
RESPONSE>>The ERICA Tool was used to estimate external dose rates and this is now clearly stated in the manuscript. We assumed 100% soil dry matter and this is now noted in the section on dose estimation; we also site soil dry matter contents from other studies in the Red Forest to put this value into context.
Nicholas A. Beresford et al.
Nicholas A. Beresford et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 214 | 68 | 14 | 296 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 214
- PDF: 68
- XML: 14
- Total: 296
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1